A new low with these headlines, comparing there plastic surgery and looks. what a shallow, empty, meaningless society America is, disgusting

Skip the surgery. We spend a fortune on looking good, clothing, makeup, cars, etc. I can tell you that the easiest and cheapest way to look good is to lose weight. Lookin' good is well worth the effort. I lost 47 pounds in 6 weeks using the Rapidthin diet at www.rapidthin.com. Good luck to all. Use what works for you.

Obviously the "Palmer method" will do nothing for normal people like most of us but will inflate the big heads of the plastic celebrity crowd and line the pockets of the self help authors with their subjective books designed to make them rich. Wake up people at AOL and remind them this is NOT NEWS< NOT INTERESTING and NOT WORTH THE TIME >>>>>>>>>>Get some real journalists and furlough your third graders who grovel for stories.!!!!!

God, how weary I am of this obsession with looks in this country. Beauty is indeed VERY subjective and there is plenty you can do to take good care of yourself (nutrition, exercise, etc.) without cutting on your face. Plastic surgery has become a crutch, telling people there is really something wrong with their features. This doctor fellow makes his living doing this and I believe people are the poorer for it. There is nothing wrong with removing a scar, or repairing a broken nose, etc., but to change one's face for the frivolities of fashion, and to simultaneously denigrate the blend of you created by both your parents and to say to God that He does not know how to make you perfect as you are, that just bites. I accept my face as I was born into it, with all the attendant hills and valleys carved over the years of life. No one gets out of here without some scrapes and scratches. It shows you have lived and hopefully learned. I would take a scarred and scratched person with a big heart and beautiful, humble soul filled with Jesus Christ, over fake plastic surgery.
Self improvement, yes. Denying your true humanity because someone else says you are not beautiful, NO. True beauty does begin in the soul and spirit. I believe the old saying "You have the face you deserve at age 40".
How true!

Here's the problem Dr. Palmer doesn't address: It is fine and good when you are younger than 60.....and have taken good care of yourself and had good genes and bone structure to begin with and no surgery. But after 60, none of the above matters. That is when you realize that physical beauty is fleeting, no matter what you do. And that you will only be happy with yourself if you have developed interests, a great sense of humor, educated yourself, and are someone that others are happy to be around, and that you, yourself, are happy. That is what endures for your entire life.....not physical beauty. And if you base your assessment of yourself on physical beauty alone, you are destined for a shallow, unfulfilled life when you are in the latter part of your life.

Beauty comes from within. All plastic surgery accomplishes is to make the surgeons richer. Take what God gave you and instead of trying to change your looks, let's try to change this country of ours that is going straight to Hell!

I agree with all..AOL has sunk to some pathetic headlines: what's next, who farts the most in Hollow-wood? Look, I just sunk to a new low with my comment...we all should turn off this addiction and read a book

what a crock. heaven forbid these morons ever have a real reason to live. narcissus had nothing on these airheads.

Dr. Palmer sounds like he has a pretty narrow perception of beauty. Sounds like a person I'd be fine never knowing, and a shallow dickface. That's right, "dickface."

The only people who make out on this deal are the surgeons. This guy has made millions telling people that they dont look good and need surgery. And then he performs it for them. I wouldnt buy his book if he gave it away. Who wants to look like someone else. Im proud of all my imperfections...it makes me...me.....

Wonder how old this guy is? If he thinks Marilyn Monroe is one of the most beautiful, and I do think she was attractive, that tells me his idea of a beautiful woman is a throwback from the 50's.

OMG.... This is the most pathetic way to rate "beauty" I'm embarrased to even wasted time reading it!!!

Sorry guys, Dr. Palmer is dead-on. And you question Marilyn Monroe? Her amazing features are what the most beautiful women today also possess. Get your head out of your arse!

Does Dr. Palmer realize he diqualified himself as soon as he scored Jen Aniston anywhere in the 90s. Who else scored in the 90's to Palmer? Sarah Jessica Parker? Joan Rivers?

after looking at beautiful faces for 20 years, he thinks
he can define beauty...what about the rest of us normal
people, you dont see..
oh doc, you are as shallow as the women you work on..
or just need money, so write a book!!!

Wow. This "article" is the biggest waste of space I've seen here. Palmer and his rating system make no sense. It's arbitrary. Cheekbones are worth 75 points, yet many of those who scored high have barely noticable ones.

Dr. Palmer is right on. He doesn't talk about the chin and general shape of the face however and these are very important, particularly the shape. Round, oval, angular....etc...
proportions are the most important factor followed by what Dr. Palmer discusses. In this society too much emphasis is put on having a small nose. Too small a nose is a flaw. The classical standards of beauty defined by the Greeks three thousand years ago applied to people of the Mediterranean, Nordic features may impart different proportions however the Greek standards hold true today as they have for 3000 years. A forehead should represent a third of a face. the distance between the brows and down to below the nose above the lips another third and the last third is between just below the nose to the chin.
The space between the eyes should accomodate a third eye comfortably. Too narrow a space and it looks simiesque, too far apart and it looks strange.

Dr. Palmer is nothing more than your garden variety narcissist. He talks out of his butt and makes things up as he goes. He's completely oblivious to the fact that his entire practice is a joke and no one takes him seriously. He double talks and has no idea what he's talking about.

First he says that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. Than he says that Marilyn Monroe's body isn't what's in at the moment. So which is it? Is there a universal law of beauty or is it determined in the eyes of contemporary society? Obviously, if the scope of what's beautiful changes over time, than it is most certainly in the eye of the beholder.

Stupidity plus narcissism makes for a horrible combination. It's scary what happens when people like this are given attention. Both him and the 'journalist' who wrote this should feel ashamed.